Well, I Guess He Proved Evolution Wrong…

The best part about letters-to-the-editor is that crazy views get published for the world to see… and the more local the paper, the wackier they get.

Case in point: This letter from Raphael Sealey to the Contra Costa Times in California:

Jayne Thomas, in her March 29 letter, “Evolution is not a ‘viewpoint’,” is right in insisting evolution isn’t a viewpoint.

The fantasy, not theory, of evolution supposedly works by survival of the fittest. Fittest for what? Fittest to survive? So evolution merely asserts that those who survive, survive.

My friend, God, nearly laughed his head off when he heard that one.

Raphael Sealey
Berkeley

The brilliant logic of someone who has no idea what he’s talking about.

Incidentally, someone with the same name teaches at UC Berkeley. I’ve reached out to the professor to see if he’s the same person who wrote the letter.

(Thanks to Alan for the link!)

About Hemant Mehta

Hemant Mehta is the editor of Friendly Atheist, appears on the Atheist Voice channel on YouTube, and co-hosts the uniquely-named Friendly Atheist Podcast. You can read much more about him here.

  • http://www.twitter.com/alansimpson jediofpool

    Well, that’s evolution taken care of. Theory of Gravity next?

    • slaq

      Uuhhh, let’s see…

      The fantasy of gravity supposedly works by things falling. Falling how? What sort of things? SO WE’RE JUST SUPPOSED TO BELIVE THAT FALLING THINGS FALL? Pretty limited “theory” if you ask me.

      • Stev84

        Look up “intelligent falling”

        • slaq

          My friend, the Invisible Pink Unicorn, nearly laughed her horn off when she heard that one.

          • coyotenose

            Oh dear! I hope you bought her some invisible pink duct tape!

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/ Kevin_Of_Bangor

          This is brilliant.

          “Things fall not because they are acted upon by some gravitational force, but because a higher intelligence, ‘God’ if you will, is pushing them down,” said Gabriel Burdett, who holds degrees in education, applied Scripture, and physics from Oral Roberts University.

          Burdett added: “Gravity—which is taught to our children as a law—is founded on great gaps in understanding. The laws predict the mutual force between all bodies of mass, but they cannot explain that force. Isaac Newton himself said, ‘I suspect that my theories may all depend upon a force for which philosophers have searched all of nature in vain.’ Of course, he is alluding to a higher power.”

          ………………………………………………………………………………………………..

          Yes, I know it is from an Onion article.

          • Chris B

            “who holds degrees in education, applied Scripture, and physics from Oral Roberts University.”

            I think you spelled “psychics” wrong…

      • Mario Strada

        Actually, flat earthers (yes, they have a forum and they leave the same snarky “wake up, you people” comments creationists, holocaust and climate change deniers do) believe gravity does not exist and it is instead due to continuous acceleration (which according to general relativity is indistinguishable).

        I like reading their forum, it’s always good for a laugh. I was never tempted to post there though. These are people for whom the creation/evolution debate was settled 6000 years ago.

    • ORAXX

      I would suggest anyone questioning the theory of gravity to go dive off the roof of a tall building.

    • meekinheritance

      At the risk of increasing attention to what should be a dark corner of the internet…
      When I was on vacation in a southern Florida camper park a few months ago, I came across a complimentary copy of this book, titled “Gravity True For You But Not For Me”. The subtitle is, “Evidence For God’s Existence and Identity”.
      I haven’t read it [yet?], but figured I could safely get one copy off the streets. http://www.amazon.com/Gravity-True-For-You-ebook/dp/B006XG0ID4

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Adam-Patrick/100000027906887 Adam Patrick

    Is there some kind of law I’m unaware of that prevents creationists from actually knowing about the theory of evolution?

    • Artor

      If they understood it, they wouldn’t be creationists anymore. Likewise, if they actually read & understood their Bibles, they wouldn’t be Xians anymore either.

      • C Peterson

        Your first point is really excellent: it does seem that, outside mental illness, it is impossible to understand evolution and the current state of evolutionary theory without accepting it as fact.

        Your second point is reasonable, but not absolute. Unlike evolution, “understanding” the bible requires a huge amount of imprecise interpretation, so it doesn’t drive factual belief in the same way. Indeed, there are many progressive Christians who don’t accept the literal truth of the bible at all, which of course facilitates them remaining Christian.

        • Artor

          Thank you, but when I wrote of “understanding the Bible,” I wasn’t referring to a hermeneutic interpretation of it, but rather analysis of the internal logic, (or lack thereof) and the historical & mythological underpinnings of it. It is obviously not the divine, infallible Word of Gawd, and understanding that does not require any imprecise & arbitrary interpretation, just an honest reading & a basic knowledge of logic & comparative religion.

          • C Peterson

            Understood. My point was that you can be a Christian and not believe much of the bible.

        • http://www.facebook.com/people/Michael-W-Busch/578120211 Michael W Busch

          “it does seem that, outside mental illness, it is impossible to
          understand evolution and the current state of evolutionary theory
          without accepting it as fact”

          Do not invoke mental illness here. That inappropriately stigmatizes mental illnesses, and is also inaccurate. Kurt Wise understands evolution well enough to get his PhD in paleontology, but is still a young Earth creationist. He says a large number of things that are incredibly wrong, but that does not make him anything other than neurotypical and mistaken.

          • C Peterson

            It is not at all clear that Kurt Wise understands evolution. Indeed, I would argue that he does not, and a degree in geology or paleontology is certainly no proof of such understanding.

            Neither is it clear that he isn’t suffering from an actual mental handicap.

            Of course, it’s also possible that he’s simply a liar, a person capitalizing on taking an intellectually unsupportable viewpoint to benefit from the large audience of uneducated and unsophisticated people wanting to hear that message.

            • http://www.facebook.com/people/Michael-W-Busch/578120211 Michael W Busch

              Wise passed his classes and his thesis exams. If you think he didn’t understand evolutionary biology well enough for a paleontologist, take it up with the Harvard faculty. Gould, who was Wise’s advisor, has been dead for 11 years now, but some other members of his thesis committee should still be around.

              Claiming “someone who understands evolution can’t be a creationist”, and then immediately reclassifying the rare creationist who to all appearances _does_ understand evolution as “not truly understanding evolution” is an example of the No True Scotsman Fallacy.

              >>Neither is it clear that he isn’t suffering from an actual mental handicap.<<

              Stop. "Mental illness" not equal to "Mental handicap". And "sincerely believes something that is completely outrageous" implies neither.

              Wise is loudly and offensively _wrong_. That does not make him mentally ill or mentally impaired or a liar.

              • C Peterson

                As an educator, I am well aware of the fact that people can display an apparently excellent knowledge of the facts of a subject, and still lack any real understanding. So I do not consider the passing of classes and exams as automatically demonstrating actual understanding.

                I would argue that if Wise truly understands evolution, than the position he is taking is only explainable by his being a liar, or his being in some way mentally impaired (and I’m not prepared here to discuss the finer points of “handicap” versus “illness” or any similar subtleties, the point being a mind that is not functioning normally- for whatever reason).

                Since the way in which he is wrong stands at complete odds to both mainstream geology and mainstream biology, and even to non-mainstream views of either, I think it is quite proper to say he is neither a geologist nor a biologist/evolutionist without falling victim to the No True Scotsman fallacy. After all, there really are people who aren’t Scotsman, and it is no fallacy to point that out.

                • http://www.facebook.com/people/Michael-W-Busch/578120211 Michael W Busch

                  You can say that Wise is no longer a geologist. You can say he is not a biologist. You can say he says things that are outrageously nonsensical in failed attempts to justify his religious beliefs. But without additional information you _cannot_ say he is a liar. And unless you have a clinical psychological assessment of Wise to reference, you can’t say he is mentally ill or mentally impaired.

                  And by trying to equate Wise’s being wrong with being mentally ill or mentally handicapped, you are contributing to false stigmas against mental illness and mental impairment (this is a form of ableism).

                • C Peterson

                  I didn’t say he is a liar. I said that being a liar is one possible explanation for the position he takes. Likewise for the other possibilities I suggested.

                  It is, without doubt, possible that he is mentally ill, and I fail to see how that assertion in any way stigmatizes mental illness.

                • http://www.facebook.com/people/Michael-W-Busch/578120211 Michael W Busch

                  It implies a connection between Wise’s outrageously wrong ideas and mental illness, when there is none.

                • C Peterson

                  I don’t think you are accurately interpreting my comments.

                • http://www.facebook.com/people/Michael-W-Busch/578120211 Michael W Busch

                  I cannot read minds. Nor can anyone else. That is one reason to be careful with ableist language.

          • cipher

            I disagree. Kurt Wise, and others like him (creationists with doctorates from reputable universities – unfortunately, a growing demographic) are enmeshed in states of denial so profound that I can’t see how they don’t qualify as mental illness.

            • http://www.facebook.com/people/Michael-W-Busch/578120211 Michael W Busch

              Denial by itself does not indicate mental illness. Nor does being wrong.

              • C Peterson

                Actually, I disagree. Science denialism is likely a form of mental illness, related to conspiracy theory obsessions, and Wise appears to be a typical science denier in many respects. It is quite reasonable to consider the possibility that he is mentally ill.

              • cipher

                I agree with CP. That level of denial of objective reality is certainly a form of mental illness. Moreover, most creationists in this society are conservative evangelicals, and the obvious enthusiasm many of them manifest regarding our postmortem states is almost certainly indicative of psychopathy.

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Michael-W-Busch/578120211 Michael W Busch

        Not quite. A few Christian creationists actually do understand evolutionary biology, and choose to reject it; and do understand what’s in the Bible and still choose to endorse it.

        Kurt Wise would be a prominent example. He got a PhD in paleontology from Harvard, working with Stephen Jay Gould. At one point, he went through his bible, physically cutting out all of the things that he knew made no sense. He was left with a pile of scraps. And yet he is still unwilling to abandon Christianity or creationism and says “If all the evidence in the universe turns against creationism, I would
        be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because
        that is what the Word of God seems to indicate”.

        • Artor

          That kind of deliberate rejection of reality makes my head hurt. From pounding it on my desk, mostly.

        • Theseus

          Yeah. Wise is a very frustrating .

          “Your arms off”!

          “No it isn’t”.

          “What’s that then”?!!

          “Tis but a scratch”.

          I guess some people are perfectly comfortable with saying up is down and black is white.

        • rustygh

          “he went through his bible, physically cutting out all of the things that he knew made no sense.”

          Thomas Jefferson did this and its not just scraps left. Its actually very interesting.

    • RickRay

      It’s not a law, Adam, it’s known as the ‘god virus’. LOL

  • Theseus

    I have never read such a devastating argument against evolution. I can’t believe that I thought that the accumulative mountain of transitional fossils, vestigial traits, and all that silly DNA stuff actually consisted of proof of evolutions existence. Dinos with feathers? Whales with hind limbs? Apes that walked upright? DNA maps that show common ancestry? Activating ancient genes in birds so that they grow teeth and tails? PFFFFT! You call that evidence?!!

    There’s no coming back from this one. I’m hanging it up.

    • kevin white

      YEp, time to pick up your bibles and discriminate against gays, athiests, and non-christians… While cherrypicking from the bible and getting the meanings totally wrong!!!

    • Theseus

      Ha! Who’s down voting us? Is this one of those creationist/IDer’s?

      Please enlighten us. Where are we going wrong?

      • Rain

        They don’t know that the baby Jesus cries when people thumbs down things. Someone is making the baby Jesus very sad.

        • Theseus

          LMAO!

        • kevin white

          I always tell religious downvoters that when they downvote, God kills a kitten and a baby.

      • JET

        *click* = “I win!”

      • coyotenose

        Someone within the last couple of weeks got really butthurt and is downvoting obsessively. It’s just an angry lurker who chimed in without bothering to do basic Google research, got thrashed to the nines, and is now hammering what he thinks is his “I WIN” button.

        • Theseus

          OOOOH! Dunh Dunh Dunh! (gasp) Look out, you too are suffering the wrath of the religious fundie downvoter!

          • kevin white

            There’s no need to fear, the chronic Upvoter is here!

            • coyotenose

              Heeheehee!

        • coyotenose

          Oh, and he’s also too dumb to realize that we can upvote our own posts, even without signing in, so it isn’t possible for him to affect anything.

          *upvotes self just because*

          • kevin white

            Huh, Didn’t know that. I swear, i learn something new in the friendly Atheist comment section every day. :)

        • Theseus

          Hey, you’re right. A couple of us got into a little debate with someone over at the Richard Dawkins thread. He’s been downvoting the heck out of us.I think he’s a poser because he says he’s an atheist, then makes these curious religious fundie apologies. I think he’s the one doing it.

    • Vic

      I have to say that I’m with you on this one. It is an overwhelming statement based on the best kind of thinking. All of the anthropology I’ve studied over the past 35 years was obviously a waste of time.

    • Ryan

      If you have a twitter account, I want to follow lol

  • randomfactor

    My drinking buddy, Harvey, thinks the guy’s an idiot.

    • Theseus

      Well in my experience, six foot invisible rabbits do have a pretty good head on their shoulders.

  • liu

    Again, this is the sort of thing that can’t just be written off as willful ignorance. It takes pure stupidity to come up with something this dumb.

  • Michael

    But he proved _Natural Selection_ right, so that’s okay.

  • C Peterson

    I think that the citizens of Berkeley, a well-educated town, should take up a collection to buy Raphael a nice house in Kentucky or South Carolina, where he’d be right at home (and raise the collective IQ of Berkeley by a few tenths, as well).

    • JohnnieCanuck

      You come close to Sir Robert Muldoon’s famous comment that NZ residents moving to Australia were raising the IQ level of both countries.

    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/chidy/ chicago dyke

      i just think it’s really unfair that idiots like this guy get to live there, and i don’t.

  • jdm8

    So not believing in an imaginary friend is a fantasy, and believing in an imaginary friend isn’t?

  • Jason Horton

    Blame Herbert Spencer for coining the phrase “survival of the fittest” which is a tautology and far removed from what modern biologists understand as evolution. Raphael Sealey has only about a century and a half of catching up to do.

    • Reginald Selkirk

      It takes a special gift to think that evolution by means of natural selection is both so true as to be labelled a tautology, and false.

      • Jason Horton

        Reginald, “survival of the fittest” is a tautology. It takes a special gift to think that “survival of the fittest” is the same as evolution.

  • viaten

    Ironically, the letter has the right idea. Those that survive had parents fit enough to survive long enough to produce them and they will do the same if they are fit enough to survive long enough. If God’s laughing, it’s probably because of the irony that evolution produces people who ironically say things about evolution that have some truth in them they don’t realize.

  • http://www.last.fm/user/m6wg4bxw m6wg4bxw

    I’m not convinced this is genuine.

    • TheBlackCat13

      It may not be, but I’ve seen this argument presented completely seriously countless times.

      • http://www.last.fm/user/m6wg4bxw m6wg4bxw

        I know, and I hate that you’re right.

  • http://twitter.com/arensb arensb

    In a sense, Sealey has a point: “survival of the fittest” does mean “those that have what it takes to reproduce, reproduce”. Of course, this is like saying that “those companies that have what it takes to make a profit, make a profit”. The interesting part is “what it takes”.

    Businesses can make a profit by making better products, making cheaper products, overcharging for products, giving products away for free, by splitting up, by consolidating, and a million other ways. The only thing these approaches have in common is that under the right circumstances they can improve the bottom line.

    Likewise, organisms can thrive by having lots of offspring and trusting that some will survive by luck; or by having few offspring and caring for them. Or by having sex; or by not having sex. By looking the same as everyone else; or by standing out from the crowd. Again, the only thing that the multitide of ways to make a living have in common is that, under the right circumstances, they raise the average number of offspring that an organism leaves behind.

    • Joshua Katz

      Right, the letter is correct that the phrase “survival of the fittest” doesn’t tell us any specifics, and is a tautology. If only scientists had said other things about evolution…oh, wait.

      • http://twitter.com/arensb arensb

        Yeah, but that stuff is hidden away in books and stuff. No one would ever think to look there. Well, not people who distrust book-learnin’, anyway. Checkmate, evilutionists!

  • Sergio Castro

    This guy just proved survival of the fittest to be untrue. Because he survived long enough to write this letter.

    • dan davis

      Ahh, but did he reproduce to have fertile offspring, if not, his fitness is 0. It’s a shame there’s likely someone stupid enough out there to pair up, but then again they parade their ignorance like a peacocks feather, could his be sexual selection at work? A study on gene flow in xians would be interesting, perhaps female selection of intelligence is a prezygotic isolating mechanism and peripatric speciation is occurring before our very eyes! Dawkins, get on it!

  • http://www.last.fm/user/m6wg4bxw m6wg4bxw

    Someone evidently got the date wrong. The following is from April 9 letters to the editor

    Evolution is not a ‘viewpoint’

    Thanks for printing the hilarious letter from Bob Humphrey,
    “Schools teach kids what to think.” Evolution is not a “viewpoint” — it is a proven theory demonstrated today (see genetic changes in fruit flies). Credible science professors would certainly be impatient being challenged by students with minds mired in the Bronze Age.

    Those fortunate enough to attend a university should embrace the adventure of expanding their mind, not closing it. If they have religious interests, they should study comparative religions, archaeology, anthropology, mythology and, above all, logic.

    You cannot call yourself a Christian and also claim to be a critical thinker. Anyone who explores the above disciplines recognizes that many religious beliefs are just contemporary versions of numerous ancient myths.

    Which reminds me, now is the perfect season to revisit Monty Python’s brilliant film, “The Life of Brian.”

    Jayne Thomas

    • Mackinz

      It’s very possible that there were two letters, since the one referred to in your given reply was written by a “Bob Humphrey” and not “Raphael Sealey” as shown in the picture above.

      Regardless of their names, however, they’re both morons.

      • http://www.last.fm/user/m6wg4bxw m6wg4bxw

        I edited my post to link the Bob Humphrey letter too. It’s a series — Raphael was responding to Jayne, who was responding to Bob, and so on.

    • http://www.facebook.com/bonnie.lill Bonnie Lill

      How shall we fuck off, Oh Lord?

    • dan davis

      That’s a xmas/easter special. It’d be like watching rudolf today

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1220871538 Alan Eckert

      The dates are a bit messed up. We get this physical paper every Friday. Most letters that refer to a previous letter are in the printed edition. There are more letters published online but they can have varying dates. (I’m the guy who sent this to Hemant)

  • Mackinz

    I don’t want to live in this state (California) anymore…

    At the very least, I can be proud I’ve not seen anything of that level of stupid in my area’s newspaper.

    • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_Pink_Unicorn Anna

      I live in an area almost as liberal as Berkeley, and we get letters to the editor like that. I really don’t mind if uber-conservatives write in. As long as the newspaper is willing to publish all views, I don’t see harm in them contributing their opinions. I’d be a lot more weirded out if they started getting feature articles in the paper.

      • http://www.flickr.com/photos/chidy/ chicago dyke

        most papers i read (which is not very often anymore, and for this reason, among others) always seem to have a 60/40 or 3-1 ration of stupid, right wing theocrat letters to rational, science based humanist ones. when i lived in MI the major papers were particularly bad about this. i don’t know if this is because so many people like us have migrated to the internet in disgust with mainstream papers, or if it has to do with the rather obvious bias of the editorial boards of most of those papers, favoring the right wing.

        • Theseus

          Yeah editorial boards can favor the right wing, however I notice that a lot of it goes the way of fiscal conservatism not necessarily the social and religious theocrats.

      • Theseus

        And unfortunately liberal doesn’t equal critical thought.

  • articulett

    Someone didn’t teach Raphael that those which survive can pass on the genes that helped them survive, thus playing a role in what evolves. Biology Fail for Raphael!

    I am so tired of dishonest religionists who think that they understand evolution– they just swallow everythng that their indoctrinators dump into their heads. But what more can you expect from people who imagine that they will live “happily ever after” so long as they BELIEVE the right magic stories.

  • articulett

    Let me guess– his competing explanation for the origin of the species involves a 3-in-1 invisible deity who can poof things into existence (but prefers to watch things like octopuses and cockroaches have sex), a talking snake, and a floating zoo!

    And I’m betting his “evidence” for this “explantion” is a bronze-aged text supposedly inspired by the aforementioned 3-in-1 deity.

    Oh… and I bet he thinks humble and saved for BELIEVING this explanation (dumped straight into his head by his indoctrinators) too!

  • RobMcCune

    Raphael Sealey could compete with Khan Academy.

    Master the following disciplines in seconds.

    Biology: Survivors survive, Darwin was a moron
    Physics: Moving objects move, Newton was an ass.
    Chemistry: Mixin’ stuff changes shit, Antoine Lavoisier is unpronounceable.
    Computer Science: I don’t know about computers, I still write letters to the editor.

  • jeffj900

    Mr Sealy’s mistake is to think that evolution is only based on survival of the fittest and nothing else. If that assumption were true, he would be quite correct to laugh at the absurdity. It’s like looking at a chair and seeing only one leg, for some reason missing the others. Any sensible person would laugh at the idea that a one legged chair could stand on its own.

    Adding the other legs, for example naturally occurring genetic diversity, and the expression of that diversity that causes natural differences in fitness, and how that feeds back into natural genetic diversity by providing more opportunities to reproduce, over hundreds of millions of generations spanning billions of years, we can see that evolution is not the one legged chair that Mr Sealy has mistaken it for.

    • kevin white

      That’s the thing about Evolution deniers. They never see the whole chair, they only wish to see what they see as the weakest leg.

      • Theseus

        Yeah I can poke holes in anything if I want to. Michael Shermer described evolution as not one thing but many things. It really doesn’t matter if you call into question a particular detail, if that detail has nothing to do with the mountain of evidence that still proves evolutions existence.

        I got into this with people that wanted to discount all of the evidence of the O.J. trial based on one potential goof, error, or area of misconduct. If there is all this evidence that proved Simpson was guilty and it stands on it’s own, what difference does it make if you can point to some other shit and say “see, see ,look at what happened here”? Especially if it’s not related to all the evidence that still proves his guilt anyway?

        • jeffj900

          I think the answer is that if there is reasonable doubt you have to err on the side of acquittal. It may seem clear to almost everyone that he committed the crime, and he probably did, but neither you or I KNOW that. If we had sat on the jury, we might see it differently. The questionable handling of evidence and misconduct on the part of investigators opened doubt that had to be reckoned with. For all we know, some other killer may be revealed in another decade. What seems obviously true isn’t necessarily true.

          I have to admit I haven’t thoroughly examined the evidence. I was in fact out of the country during that trial and was not exposed to any television coverage. But what I heard about seemed to consist of lots of circumstantial evidence, facts that could have been true even if someone else were the killer. He did seem to exhibit suspicious behavior. He seemed to have the best known motive, but there could be others with unknown motives.

          And finally, as I recall, and I could have the details wrong, but there was some blood evidence connecting OJ with the crime that was tainted with preservative, indicating that it had been planted by an overzealous officer with intent to incriminate OJ. If investigators are behaving in that way, it calls all the other “facts” into doubt, and one wonders why they had to resort to such tactics if there was so much good evidence already.

          In the end LA police incompetence caused the acquital, whether he committed the crime or not.

          • Theseus

            Hmmm, as far as evidence that was presented to the jury, you have a point. However I am talking about the evidence information that we as the general public have access to.

            You are proving my point about the blood at the crime scene or police misconduct. I would suggest that you may need to brush up on it if you are interested.

            There are a few major points that make the issues that you brought up irrelevant:

            1) O.J. admitted on the police tape that he dripped blood all over his house from the gash on his finger TWICE! It made things even worse when he said that he didn’t remember or know how he cut his finger. Wow. So the prime suspect in the case just happens to slice open his finger on the night of a double murder, and drip blood all over while having a brain fart and not remember how. It was sheer incompetence that the prosecution didn’t use these tapes at the criminal trial; however they were used at the civil trial. I am not exaggerating, these transcripts are available. This would be such a sci-fi alternate reality coincidence, that this by itself convinced me of his guilt.

            2) O.J. just “happens to” have purchased a disguise before the murders when he has never done so before. No receipts or evidence produced for other disguises over the years.

            3) The infamous shoes. O.J. says he never had or owned them, and calls all the crystal clear photos of him wearing them “fakes”. This fake claim is rendered moot because there is a close up magazine photo of him in the shoes published before the murders.

            I submit that #1 is devastating by itself, #2 is very fishy, and #3 is just below #1 in being damning as all hell. Taken together they are overwhelming proof and beyond reasonable doubt.

  • martinrc

    The theory of gravity states what goes up must come down, but gravity keeps things from going up, therefore gravity is not real!

  • Mario Strada

    There is a creationist working at UC Berkeley but I don’t think is this guy.
    I am always amused by the ignorance some people feel they have to show to the rest of us.

    Imagine if I wrote to the editor of my local paper and claimed that the germ theory was bunk using the same tone and lack of understanding. II think my letter wouldn’t be published. Why is evolution fair game?

  • Pureone

    If he thinks god is a friend who he can hear laughing, maybe he needs to see someone about that first….

  • johnny

    Evolution is a myth eh? 100 years ago people only lived to be 50. Now they live to be 100.

  • http://louiszwu.blogspot.com/ Michael Powers

    I love how they simplify things as much as they can possibly be. Evolution is much more complex than simply survival of the fittest. We have proven this in many ways. In the waters off Japan lives a crab that appears to have the face of a samurai warrior on it’s carapace. it started off with very few. A random mutation, one of many. There are many now because Japanese fishermen would throw these crabs back, while the others became lunch. They lived to breed, and pass off that genetic information.

  • The Other Weirdo

    The question for me is, when exactly did God laugh His head off? Being omniscient, there could not be a specific point in time at which He heard this, He would have already known this from before the Universe existed and He would have known exactly the point of time when evolution would be thought of, so it could never be a surprise.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X